The plaintiff was a 49-year-old veteran who suffered a debilitating stroke after leaving the office of an oral surgery resident employed by the veterans‘ administration. The plaintiff brought suit against the United States alleging that the veterans‘ administration oral surgeon committed dental malpractice by failing to halt the tooth extraction when the plaintiff’s blood pressure dropped sharply several times. The plaintiff also contended that the oral surgeon was negligent in allowing the plaintiff to drive home alone and failing to adequately monitor him after the procedure. The defendant maintained that its oral surgeon met the required standard of care and that the plaintiff’s stroke was unrelated to the tooth extraction performed.

The plaintiff, who had served in the United States Marines, underwent extraction of eight teeth at the defendant’s Veteran‘s Administration Medical Center in Philadelphia in 2007 under local anesthesia. The plaintiff contended that he suffered four significant drops in blood pressure during the procedure, dropping as low as 60/30 and accompanied by sweating, dizziness and syncope or near syncopal episodes. The plaintiff left the defendant’s dental office and was driving home alone when he suffered a stroke. He was discovered in his vehicle several hours later.

The plaintiff’s oral surgery expert testified that the defendant’s oral surgeon deviated from the standard of care which required that the dental procedure be stopped and that the plaintiff be placed under medical observation in light of the multiple drops in his blood pressure. This expert placed under medical observation in light of the multiple drops in his blood pressure. This expert opined that the defendant’s oral surgeon should have stopped the tooth extractions following the plaintiff’s first episode of hypotension and should have placed him under medical observation, not allowed him to drive home alone.

The plaintiff contended that the drops in blood pressure may have allowed blood clots to form and the low blood pressure then reduced or prevented emboli washout; thereby increasing the risk that the clot would cause a stroke. Also, the plaintiff’s experts testified that the drops in blood pressure signaled that the plaintiff’s condition was unstable and that he required monitoring. Had the plaintiff been monitored and treated immediately, the stroke would have resulted in less damage, according to the plaintiff’s claims.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with severe and permanent brain damage as a result of the stroke. He requires a three-point cane to ambulate and has a severe speech impediment. The plaintiff’s doctors reported that he is currently functioning with an IQ of 68 and will require attendant care for the remainder of his life. The plaintiff was employed as an electronic calibrations specialist prior to the stroke.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff’s stroke was unrelated to the dental procedures performed. The defendant’s expert oral surgeon testified that such procedures often result in blood pressure drops and that drops in blood pressure do not mandate halting the extraction procedure. The defense also contended that the plaintiff recovered from the temporary drops in blood pressure and there was no reason to call for a consult or additional medical observation.

The case was tried as a bench trial, per the Federal Tort Claims Act, with a finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $ 17,426,000. The award included $ 3,326,000 in past medical/future medical and life care; $ 1,100,000 in past and future loss of earnings; $ 10,000,000 in past and future pain and suffering and $ 3,000,000 to the plaintiff’s wife for her loss of consortium claim. Post-trial motions are pending.

Philadelphia VA Medical Malpractice Information

Malpractice and other medical misadventures at the Philadelphia VAMC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AGNES M. COLLINS, :

Plaintiff, :

v.

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, :

Defendant. :

Civil Action No. 11-4450

M E M O R A N D U M

GENE E.K. PRATTER JANUARY 10, 2012
Currently pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Florida (Doc. No. 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Government’s motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Between 1998 and 2006, the late Mr. Robert E. Collins suffered from a hiatal hernia and gastroesophogeal reflux disease (“GERD”). Mr. Collins was treated for these ailments at Veterans Administration Medical Centers (“VAMC”) in West Palm Beach, Florida from 1998 through May 2005, and then in Asheville, North Carolina from May 2005 to February 2006. All the while, Mr. Collins’s symptoms progressively worsened. During a February 12, 2006 consultation with a civilian doctor, a biopsy revealed that Mr. Collins suffered from esophageal cancer. In early 2007, Mr. Collins and his wife, Ms. Agnes Collins, moved to Pennsylvania where Mr. Collins underwent treatment at the Fox Chase Cancer Center and Crozer Chester Medical Center. However, on May 8, 2007, Mr. Collins succumbed to his cancer and passed away.

Ms. Collins brought this suit against the Government under Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. and § 1346(b), in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of herself and the estate of her late husband, alleging that the Government committed medical malpractice for failing to test for and diagnose Mr. Collins’s cancer. The Government filed the present Motion to Transfer Venue.

Plaintiffs Barry Lackro and Beverly Lackro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this medical malpracticenaction as husband and wife seeking redress for injuries sustained
during a brachytherapy procedure administered by Dr. Gary Kao (“Dr. Kao”) at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center (“PVAMC”). Dr. Kao, enclosing a certification of employment from the United States Attorney (“U.S. Attorney”), asserts that he was an
employee of the United States during the time in question and that his actions were within the scope of his employment with the United States. Consequently, Dr. Kao seeks to be dismissed from Plaintiffs’ suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) as
amended by the Westfall Act. The FTCA affords certain federal employees absolute immunity from state law tort claims for whichthe United States is subject to liability under the FTCA.

Plaintiffs agree that the FTCA provides a basis for dismissing Dr. Kao from the suit. However, Plaintiffs seek limiteddiscovery of ninety days to ensure Dr. Kao was, in fact, anemployee of the United States acting within the scope of his employment.

VA OIG FINDS PROBLEMS AT PHILADELPHIA VA!

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM MICHAEL MORELAND & VISN 4!

The information on this web site is designed to encourage a discussion about Veterans Administration, Veterans Affairs and VA medical malpractice, malpractice claims and procedures. It is not intended to be legal advice. Legal advice can only be obtained from an attorney. If you have a medical malpractice claim against the Veterans Administration, you should consult with an attorney who is familiar with handling medical malpractice claims against the Veterans Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The information which is used on this web site, is collected from information available on the World Wide Web. It contains information about Veterans Administration medical malpractice, the manner in which the Veterans Administration defends medical malpractice cases brought by veterans. It includes articles on Veterans Administration medical malpractice. These articles on Veterans Administration medical malpractice include references to medical malpractice by Veterans Administration nurses, Veterans Administration doctors, Veterans Administration physicians and Veterans Administration surgeons. Some of this information, is provided by veterans who have been harmed by medical malpractice at Veterans Administration hospitals, or by Veterans Administration doctors, Veterans Administration physicians, veterans administration surgeons, Veterans Administration nurses or other Veterans Administration medical providers. Some of information that is provided on this web site, has been provided by veterans advocate groups, that are concerned with the problem of Veterans Administration medical malpractice, because it affects the veterans who served our country, when the veterans are the subject of medical malpractice, by a Veterans Administration doctor, VA doctor, Veterans Administration surgeons, VA surgeon, Veterans Administration physician, VA physician, veterans administrations nurse, VA nurse, Veterans Administration physicians’ assistant, VA physician’s assistant, or other Veterans Administration medical provider, www.VAmalpractice.com